A geo-grid case study is a performance claim, and performance claims about SEO results carry real legal weight, not just a reputational one. In Canada, the Competition Act requires a performance representation to rest on "an adequate and proper test," with the burden of proof on whoever makes the claim. In the US, the FTC's Endorsement Guides require substantiation behind testimonial and case-study claims, and warn against unrepresentative results shown without context on what's typical. A genuine geo-grid case study needs five real things: a named client with actual permission, or clearly labeled anonymized data if not; a real baseline scan and a real follow-up scan, both dated; a stated time window between them; a consistent measurement method across both scans; and honest framing about whether the result is typical or an outlier. Missing any of these, it's marketing copy wearing a case study's clothes.
By the numbers
- Canada's Competition Act puts the burden of proof on the claimant. Section 74.01(1)(b) requires a performance representation to be based on an adequate and proper test, with the person making the claim responsible for proving it, not the reader for disproving it. GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTED
- The FTC requires substantiation behind endorsement and testimonial claims. Its Endorsement Guides (16 CFR Part 255) state that advertisers must have real substantiation for claims made through testimonials, and that unrepresentative results shown without context on what's typical can be misleading. GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTED
- DHM's own standing position already applies this discipline to rankings, covered in full on our guarantee guide: a measured baseline and a measured result, not a promised outcome. The same standard applies to case studies. DHM INTERPRETATION
- A geo-grid scan is a measurement, not a persuasion tool by itself. Its only value in a case study is as a real, dated, repeatable record, covered on our geo-grid guide, not as a chart shaped to make a point. DHM INTERPRETATION
The five-point checklist
Run any case study, yours or a competitor's, against these five points before trusting it.
| Requirement | What it looks like done right | What a fabricated version skips |
|---|---|---|
| Client identity | A named client with real permission, or clearly labeled as anonymized | A vague "a local plumbing company" with no way to verify it exists |
| Baseline scan | A dated geo-grid scan taken before any work started | No stated starting point, so "doubled" has nothing to compare against |
| Follow-up scan | A dated scan taken after a stated time window, same method as the baseline | A single after-the-fact number with no matching measurement date |
| Time window | A stated period, like "12 weeks," so the pace of the result is honest | No timeframe at all, letting the reader assume it happened faster than it did |
| Typicality | Honest framing: is this a typical result or a strong outlier? | The single best result presented as if it's the expected one |
Three ways case studies get faked, even without lying outright
Rounding a real number is a smaller problem than inventing one, but it's still a claim that no longer matches the actual measurement. If the real number was a 40% gain, "doubled" isn't a rounding error, it's a different claim.
Showing your best result isn't automatically dishonest, but the FTC's own guidance is specific: an unrepresentative result shown without saying what's typical can still mislead. Say plainly whether this is your strongest result, not your average one.
A geo-grid scan run with a different radius, a different number of points, or a different search term at the two measurement dates isn't really the same test. That inconsistency alone can produce a misleading "improvement" that isn't real.
Building one honestly, step by step
- Get written permission before you start, not after you have a result you want to publish. Retroactive permission requests read as an afterthought, and clients notice.
- Run the baseline scan before any optimization work begins. A scan taken partway through the process isn't a real baseline.
- Keep the exact same method for the follow-up scan. Same radius, same points, same search terms, same tool.
- State the real time window plainly. "Over 12 weeks" is honest. Omitting it lets a reader assume something faster.
- Say whether it's typical. If it's your best result, say so. That single sentence is the difference between a case study and a testimonial dressed up as data.
Questions we get
Frequently asked questions
Is publishing a case study actually regulated?
Yes, in both directions DHM operates. Canada's Competition Act treats a performance representation as needing an adequate and proper test behind it, with the claimant responsible for proving it. The FTC's Endorsement Guides in the US require substantiation behind testimonial and case-study claims.
Can I use a client's results without naming them?
Yes, as long as it's clearly labeled as anonymized data rather than implied to be verifiable and named. What matters most is that the underlying measurement is real, not whether the client's name is attached.
What if our best result isn't typical of most clients?
Say so directly. Presenting a strong outlier as if it's the expected result is exactly the kind of unrepresentative claim the FTC's guidance warns against, even if every individual number in it is accurate.
Does a geo-grid scan alone prove a case study is real?
Not by itself. The scan is one required piece, alongside client permission, a stated time window, and consistent methodology between the before and after measurements.
Sources
- Competition Act (Canada), s. 74.01(1)(b): performance representations not based on an adequate and proper test; proof lies with the person making the representation.
- Federal Trade Commission, Endorsement Guides (16 CFR Part 255, revised 2023): substantiation requirements and the rule against unrepresentative testimonials shown without typical-result context.
- Full detail on DHM's own no-guarantee position on our guarantee guide.
- Full detail on geo-grid measurement on our geo-grid guide.
This guide is a template and checklist, not a published case study. No specific client result is claimed anywhere on this page.